NAS rears its head again

[ARFOR]

I do indeed Howabout.

Effectively a RAS service in Australian G - ICAO F:-

ICAO Annex 11

2.6 Classification of airspaces

Class F. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive flight information service if requested.

which I have to be honest, I think is the optimum service for OCTA areas [not where Hi-Cap Air Carrier operate though]

Mr Smith

Interesting admissions in the last page or so.

I have a feeling you want the theoretical study to exist so it can confirm what your “belief system” says the result should be.

Could it be that if you do simple figures for risk of E above D, that the risk is so small that it would be clearly acceptable by most people, and that’s why none of the scientific organisations and contractors who do these studies actually give the real figure?

The Real figures? As opposed to what?

NO FIGURES, just a belief in an incompatible reference system?

No Assessments and/or CBA's that take in to account all of the 'specific' factors [differences and nuances] apparent that [if considered properly] would rule out the 'reference system approach'? You well know this. Hiding behind your 'skeptic assoc' does not wash I'm afraid. If you were a true and impartial 'skeptic' you would INSIST on open, transparent and honest assessment processes rather than a 'cut and paste' [hello LeadSled] from the US that does not fit on the Broome or Karratha or Avalon or Williamtown pages.

Have there been Volume Specific Scientifically based Risk Assessments AND Cost Benefit Analysis conducted on Broome and Karratha, that follow the legislated 'required' process, and that support the current CASA ACP's for E over D?

Just a yes or no answer to the last para/question thankyou.